Skip to content

TST: Add Python 3.7 to CI testing #11598

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jul 22, 2018
Merged

TST: Add Python 3.7 to CI testing #11598

merged 10 commits into from
Jul 22, 2018

Conversation

cclauss
Copy link

@cclauss cclauss commented Jul 22, 2018

Add Python 3.7 to CI testing. Note that on travis-ci it must run with sudo on xenial, see travis-ci/travis-ci#9069.

@charris
Copy link
Member

charris commented Jul 22, 2018

Since we are already testing with 3.7-dev, I'm not convinced the travis issue still applies. Can you try simply removing the -dev bit?

@cclauss
Copy link
Author

cclauss commented Jul 22, 2018

Did you read through the link in the commit message? 3.7 beta != 3.7 production release.

@charris charris changed the title Travis CI: Add Python 3.7 to the testing TST: Add Python 3.7 to travis-ci testing Jul 22, 2018
@charris charris changed the title TST: Add Python 3.7 to travis-ci testing TST: Add Python 3.7 to CI testing Jul 22, 2018
@charris
Copy link
Member

charris commented Jul 22, 2018

Looks like you can also add it to .appveyor.yml, see #11600.

@mhvk
Copy link
Contributor

mhvk commented Jul 22, 2018

@cclauss - thanks for noticing those issues with old ubuntu versions! This looks good to me.

A question - probably best addressed separately - is whether we should be moving some of the other tests over to xenial as well. (There is also a possible optimization that we set in astropy but (apparently) not in numpy: ccache.)

@cclauss
Copy link
Author

cclauss commented Jul 22, 2018

travis-ci/travis-ci#9069 is still an OPEN issue because Precise and Trusty are still Travis CI's supported Linux versions so I would avoid moving to Xenial unless necessary (as it is with Py37).

@charris
Copy link
Member

charris commented Jul 22, 2018

Please keep the 3.6 testing in .appveyor.yml. I arranged things as I did because we will be dropping 3.4 for 1.16 and 2.7 for 1.17.

@cclauss
Copy link
Author

cclauss commented Jul 22, 2018

@charris Ready for your review... Have I missed anything?

doc/Makefile Outdated
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# Makefile for Sphinx documentation
#

PYVER = 3.6
PYVER = 3.7
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one should not be changed, 3.6 is widespread these days, will probably be supported for a couple of years, and so using it to build the documentation makes sense. OTOH, 3.7 is brand new and not yet included in many distros.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So do we revert Circle CI to Py36?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So do we revert Circle CI to Py36?

Hmm, to tell the truth, I don't know ;) Did you try it with only one of the two changed? It cannot hurt to stick with 3.6 for a while.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Guess it matters, good to know.

@charris charris merged commit bc021e4 into numpy:master Jul 22, 2018
@charris
Copy link
Member

charris commented Jul 22, 2018

Thanks @cclauss .

charris pushed a commit to charris/numpy that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2018
Add testing with Python 3.7 to both appveyor and travis.
charris added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 23, 2018
TST: Add Python 3.7 to CI testing (#11598)
@cclauss cclauss deleted the patch-1 branch July 23, 2018 03:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants